RoosterOnAStick wrote:. . . if someone wants something that is not healthy or even more destructive than their current state, how would it be loving to allow them that? Suicide is a good example of this. Shall we allow people to end their suffering by killing themselves or should we try to intervene? Would that be loving?
What makes this analysis so difficult is our tendency to analogize the situation. The problem is that by doing this we ultimately humanize God, which is inappropriate given God's characteristics being supreme and perfect. The truth is we don't know exactly all the factors God will need to balance in determining what to do with the condemned. I just happen to think that a divine euthanasia is in order and you think that God will permit self-induced torment. Self-induced torment is still torment. To raise an analogy, if your dog is irrevocably suffering with no hope for recovery, will you not put it to death, and is this not merciful? I am sort of breaking my own rules by analogizing the situation. The situation we are considering is complex enough that pure reason and conscience may not favor either one over the other. . . in some sense it reduces everything to speculation and apologetics. Needless to say, we will certainly agree that there is an undesirable outcome in the afterlife and a desirable outcome that we hope for.
RoosterOnAStick wrote:With the understanding that part of what Christ came to do was to prevent us from dying and losing our existence completely, why would He then destroy people's existence completely? God would be turning His back on His own creation and undoing everything He did for us.
First off, I love your short exposition of Eastern Orthodox theology, it is the best of the Christus Victor motif. But, I must say I do not see how it connects to saving the existence of everyone. This kind of reasoning is reminiscent of universalism arguments even though it does not go that far. I think the best theological concept to counter this is the idea of Limited Atonement. Do you remember much of the sacrificial system outlined in Leviticus? Those who receive atonement are the ones who seek it. If you don't seek it and you outright reject it, then do you not reject existence itself? Then, how should God respond to such a rejection? This is admittedly based on a relational view of atonement, but I feel this is a true way to think of the situation between us and God. I don't think atonement can be forced onto people who hate God and his purpose.
I had to look up Christus Victor, as I had never actually heard the term before, lol.
I suppose you could say I am somewhat of an advocate for it but there also seems to be a Protestant version as well. It may be that the latter seems to de-emphasizes sin and our culpability in it. If you look up some Orthodox Prayers you will see that this is far from the case here (taken from a morning prayer)...
"Arising from sleep I thank you, O holy Trinity, because of the abundance of your goodness and long-suffering, you were not angry with me, slothful and sinful as I am. Neither have you destroyed me in my transgressions, but in your compassion raised me up as I lay in despair, that at dawn I might sing the glories of your Majesty."
The intended interpretation of being "destroyed" is burning in the fire of God's glory, as I had mentioned before.
In our services we also pray for "a good defense before the fearful dread judgment seat of Christ". We know we don't really have one, though we try not to be sinners, we will do so anyway. Our goal in this life is to prepare for the next by cooperating with God's will. We will accept or reject Him based on whether we want to cooperate with God's saving grace or not.
I think the book of Romans (In particular chapters 5 to 8 ) is worth looking at as it demonstrates that Christ died for all the ungodly and all sinners. Since all have fallen short of the glory of God, that means all men. Of course, we can accept the atonement God gives us, or we don't. Notice in verse 6:23 when he speaks of the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God being eternal life. God gives us a gift that we are free to accept for us to atone and strive to living a sinless life. However, we have earned the consequences of our own sins. God giving His grace and salvation to all does not imply universal atonement by any means when taken in this light.
A good analogy would actually be the end of The Last Battle in CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. Most of the allegories used there illustrate my points relatively well.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple
But, I must say I do not see how it connects to saving the existence of everyone. This kind of reasoning is reminiscent of universalism arguments even though it does not go that far. I think the best theological concept to counter this is the idea of Limited Atonement. Do you remember much of the sacrificial system outlined in Leviticus? Those who receive atonement are the ones who seek it. If you don't seek it and you outright reject it, then do you not reject existence itself? Then, how should God respond to such a rejection? This is admittedly based on a relational view of atonement, but I feel this is a true way to think of the situation between us and God. I don't think atonement can be forced onto people who hate God and his purpose.
